Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1580/2025 on 16 February, 2026
2026:UHC:971
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1580/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta along with
Mr. Raft Munir Ali, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief
Holders for the State.
3. Applicant – Mumtaj @ Monu, who is
in judicial custody in connection with
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 222 of 2025,
registered under Sections 376 I.P.C. and
Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police
Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, has sought his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
on 11.06.2025 alleging that the
complainant, a resident of Village Harsan
and a student of Class 11 in the year
2022, was below 18 years of age at the
relevant time. It is alleged that the
applicant used to follow her, introduced
himself as “Monu,” expressed false love,
and developed a relationship with her for
about one and a half years. It is further
alleged that the applicant used to keep
her mobile phone and send messages
from it. In the year 2024, when the
complainant allegedly came to know that
“Monu” was actually Mumtaj and that he
was already married and had three
children, she became distressed and
started maintaining distance from him.
2026:UHC:971
Thereafter, the applicant allegedly
continued to follow her to school and
coaching centre, caught hold of her hand
on some occasions, forcibly made her sit
in his vehicle, and on 02.06.2025 made a
video call which was received by her
brother and upon being asked to keep
distance, the applicant allegedly
threatened the family with dire
consequences.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that both the
applicant and the complainant reside in
the same village. It is argued that the
complainant was fully aware of the
applicant’s identity and religion,
particularly as her cousin sister is
married to the applicant. Therefore, the
allegation that she was misled regarding
his name, religion, and marital status is
stated to be false.
7. It is further submitted that during
investigation, in her statement recorded
under Section 180 B.N.S., the victim
made allegations regarding certain
objectionable videos and harassment,
and stated that the applicant had taken
her to a hotel at Kaladhungi. However,
upon inquiry by the Investigating Officer,
she allegedly failed to identify the said
hotel. In her statement under Section
183 B.N.S., it is submitted that certain
aspects regarding the place of occurrence
were not clearly stated. It is further
contended that during medical
examination, the victim stated that the
last sexual relations were in June 2023.
8. Learned counsel submits that there
are material contradictions in the
statements of the complainant, creating
doubt in the prosecution story. It is also
contended that there is an unexplained
2026:UHC:971
delay of more than two years in lodging
the F.I.R. Further, the complainant’s
claim that she became aware of the
applicant’s religion only later is alleged to
be improbable, as the applicant’s wife is
her cousin sister.
9. It is further submitted that the
applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated; that there is no
credible evidence of any relationship
when the complainant was a minor; that
he is in custody since 16.06.2025; that
his bail application was rejected by the
court below on 30.07.2025; that he is a
permanent resident of District Udham
Singh Nagar and there is no likelihood of
absconding; and that the trial is likely to
take considerable time for its conclusion,
it is prayed that the applicant be
enlarged on bail.
10. Per contra, learned State counsel
opposes the bail application but fairly
admits that the applicant is in custody
since 16.06.2025 and that his earlier
bail application was rejected on
30.07.2025.
11. Upon perusal of the record, it
transpires that the prosecution case, at
this stage, is founded primarily upon the
statements of the prosecutrix and other
witnesses recorded during investigation
under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The
charge-sheet is substantially based on
these statements. The veracity,
reliability, voluntariness and evidentiary
value of such statements are matters
which can be adjudicated only during
trial, after the witnesses enter the
witness-box and are subjected to cross-
examination. Any inconsistencies,
omissions or improvements can be duly
appreciated only upon full-fledged trial.
2026:UHC:971
At the stage of consideration of bail, a
meticulous examination of evidence or
adjudication on disputed questions of
fact is neither permissible nor
warranted.
12. Without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, and considering
the settled principles governing grant of
bail, the nature of accusations, the
material collected during investigation,
the period of incarceration already
undergone, and the fact that the guilt of
the accused is yet to be established by
cogent evidence during trial, this Court
is of the view that further custodial
detention of the applicant at this stage is
not justified.
13. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, perused the record, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court finds it to be a fit
case for granting bail.
14. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
15. Let the applicant be released on
bail, subject to furnishing a personal
bond and two reliable sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
16.02.2026
Mamta
